The corruption to this administration is everywhere. They stretch the truth. They flat out lie. They influence peddle. What is this already?
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
What is it with this guy ?
John Roberts shows up in the 2000 Campaign to run rough shod over the legal system in Florida and then finds cooperation with Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist at the Supreme Court while the other Justices sit out the decision regarding Gore v. Bush.
Then he turns up again minimally on the campaign trail after being promoted to an Appeals Court Bench by Bush in 2001; to again be where the action is when a campaign issue is before a court of law? That seems too convenient. John Roberts is invisible in the 2000 and 2004 campaign and now when Bush has his first opening for a court appointment he is the first nominee. This decision was not pre-determined? Oh, I think so. Are justices that hate the American people so much running interference for candidates that see things their way? It would seem to be the case.
This is minimally influence peddling and considering the overwhelming appearance of impropriety requires a Special Prosecutor and/or resignation by all those involved.
I don't want to hear how an Appeals Court Judge can be a campaign volunteer when the entire time he is simply insuring his next appointment and promotion. This is racketeering and could very well be treason.
If this was a Kennedy or a Clinton they would find themselves up on Impeachment Proceedings in the House the next day. But, because it's a Bush and a Cheney there will be justification from all venues.
Justice Dept. Rebuffs Press Request for More Bush Guard Records
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, August 27, 2004; 11:53 AM
The Justice Department has told the Associated Press that the government does not possess any records that would shed further light on the mysteries of President Bush's Vietnam-era National Guard service, beyond those that have already been made public, a lawyer for the news agency said yesterday.
The Associated Press filed a lawsuit two months ago, demanding access to a microfilm copy of President Bush's entire Texas Air National Guard personnel record from an archive in Austin.
... On the CBS Evening News, John Roberts, traveling with Bush in New Mexico, pointed out the particularly dire statistics for Hispanics. "Mr. Bush carefully avoided any mention of the census report," Roberts said.
Then he turns up again minimally on the campaign trail after being promoted to an Appeals Court Bench by Bush in 2001; to again be where the action is when a campaign issue is before a court of law? That seems too convenient. John Roberts is invisible in the 2000 and 2004 campaign and now when Bush has his first opening for a court appointment he is the first nominee. This decision was not pre-determined? Oh, I think so. Are justices that hate the American people so much running interference for candidates that see things their way? It would seem to be the case.
This is minimally influence peddling and considering the overwhelming appearance of impropriety requires a Special Prosecutor and/or resignation by all those involved.
I don't want to hear how an Appeals Court Judge can be a campaign volunteer when the entire time he is simply insuring his next appointment and promotion. This is racketeering and could very well be treason.
If this was a Kennedy or a Clinton they would find themselves up on Impeachment Proceedings in the House the next day. But, because it's a Bush and a Cheney there will be justification from all venues.
Justice Dept. Rebuffs Press Request for More Bush Guard Records
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, August 27, 2004; 11:53 AM
The Justice Department has told the Associated Press that the government does not possess any records that would shed further light on the mysteries of President Bush's Vietnam-era National Guard service, beyond those that have already been made public, a lawyer for the news agency said yesterday.
The Associated Press filed a lawsuit two months ago, demanding access to a microfilm copy of President Bush's entire Texas Air National Guard personnel record from an archive in Austin.
... On the CBS Evening News, John Roberts, traveling with Bush in New Mexico, pointed out the particularly dire statistics for Hispanics. "Mr. Bush carefully avoided any mention of the census report," Roberts said.
How Brown is Judge Robert's Nose? What will he do with that ruling as a Supreme Court Judge?
Improper Advances
Talking dream jobs with the judge out of court.
By Stephen Gillers, David J. Luban, and Steven Lubet
Posted Wednesday, Aug. 17, 2005, at 11:50 AM PT
Four days before President Bush nominated John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court on July 19, an appeals court panel of three judges, including Judge Roberts, handed the Bush administration a big victory in a hotly contested challenge to the president's military commissions. The challenge was brought by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Guantanamo detainee. President Bush was a defendant in the case because he had personally, in writing, found "reason to believe" that Hamdan was a terrorist subject to military tribunals. The appeals court upheld the rules the president had authorized for these military commissions, and it rejected Hamdan's human rights claims—including claims for protection under the Geneva Conventions.
At the time, the close proximity of the court's decision and the Roberts nomination suggested no appearance of impropriety. Roberts had been assigned to hear the appeal back in December, and it was argued on April 7. Surely he had decided the case long before the administration first approached him about replacing Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who had announced her retirement on July 1. As it turns out, however, the timing was not so simple.
The nominee's Aug. 2 answers to a Senate questionnaire reveal that Roberts had several interviews with administration officials contemporaneous with the progress of the Hamdan appeal. One occurred even before the appeal was argued. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales interviewed the judge on April 1. Back then, it was an ailing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, not Justice O'Connor, who was expected to retire. The attorney general, of course, heads the Justice Department, which represents the defendants in Hamdan's case. And as White House counsel, Gonzales had advised the president on the requirements of the Geneva Conventions, which were an issue in the case.
The April interview must have gone quite well because Roberts next enjoyed what can only be labeled callback heaven. On May 3, he met with Vice President Dick Cheney; Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff; Karl Rove, Bush's chief political strategist; Harriet Miers, the White House legal counsel; Gonzales; and I. Lewis Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. On May 23, Miers interviewed Judge Roberts again.
Hamdan's lawyer was completely in the dark about these interviews until Roberts revealed them to the Senate. (Full disclosure: Professor Luban is a faculty colleague of Hamdan's principal lawyer.) Did administration officials or Roberts ask whether it was proper to conduct interviews for a possible Supreme Court nomination while the judge was adjudicating the government's much-disputed claims of expansive presidential powers? Did they ask whether it was appropriate to do so without informing opposing counsel?
If they had asked, they would have discovered that the interviews violated federal law on the disqualification of judges. Federal law deems public trust in the courts so critical that it requires judges to step aside if their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned," even if the judge is completely impartial as a matter of fact. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a 1988 Supreme Court opinion, "the very purpose of [this law] is to promote confidence in the judiciary by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety whenever possible." The requirement of an appearance of impartiality has been cited in situations like the one here, leading to the disqualification of a judge or the reversal of a verdict.
In 1985, a federal appeals court in Chicago cited the requirement of the appearance of impartiality when it ordered the recusal of a federal judge who, planning to leave the bench, had hired a "headhunter" to approach law firms in the city. By mistake—and, in fact, contrary to the judge's instructions—the headhunter contacted two opposing firms in a case then pending before the judge. One firm rejected the overture outright. The other was negative but not quite as definitive. Writing for the Court of Appeals, Judge Richard A. Posner emphasized that the trial judge "is a judge of unblemished honor and sterling character," and that he "is accused of, and has committed, no impropriety." Nevertheless, the court ordered the judge to recuse himself because of the appearance of partiality. "The dignity and independence of the judiciary are diminished when the judge comes before lawyers in the case in the role of a suppliant for employment. The public cannot be confident that a case tried under such conditions will be decided in accordance with the highest traditions of the judiciary." Although both law firms had refused to offer him employment, the court held that "an objective observer might wonder whether [the judge] might not at some unconscious level favor the firm … that had not as definitively rejected him."
In the fall and winter of 1984, a criminal-trial judge in the District of Columbia was discussing a managerial position with the Department of Justice while the local U.S. attorney's office—which is part of the department—was prosecuting an intent-to-kill case before him. Following the conviction and sentence, the judge was offered the department job and accepted. On appeal, the United States conceded that the judge had acted improperly by presiding at the trial during the employment negotiations. It argued, however, that the conviction should not be overturned. The appeals court disagreed. Relying on Judge Posner's opinion in the Chicago case, as well as the rules of judicial ethics, the court vacated the conviction even though the defendant did not "claim that his trial was unfair or that the [the judge] was actually biased against him." The court was "persuaded that an objective observer might have difficulty understanding that [the judge] did not … realize … that others might question his impartiality."
So, the problem in Hamdan is not that Roberts may have cast his vote to improve his chances of promotion. We believe he is a man of integrity who voted as he thought the law required. The problem is that if one side that very much wants to win a certain case can secretly approach the judge about a dream job while the case is still under active consideration, and especially if the judge shows interest in the job, the public's trust in the judiciary (not to mention the opposing party's) suffers because the public can never know how the approach may have affected the judge's thinking. Perhaps, as Judge Posner wrote, the judge may have been influenced even in ways that he may not consciously recognize.
A further complication here is that Roberts' vote was not a mere add-on. His vote was decisive on a key question of presidential power that now confronts the nation. Although all three judges reached the same bottom line in the case, they were divided on whether the Geneva Conventions grant basic human rights to prisoners like Hamdan who don't qualify for other Geneva protections. The lower court had held that some provisions do. Judge Roberts and a second judge rejected that view. The third judge said Geneva did apply, but found it premature to resolve the issues it raised. Hamdan has since asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.
Roberts did not have to sit out every case involving the government, no matter how routine, while he was being interviewed for the Supreme Court position. The government litigates too many cases for that to make any sense. But Hamdan was not merely suing the government. He was suing the president, who had authorized the military commissions and who had personally designated Hamdan for a commission trial, explaining that "there is reason to believe that [Hamdan] was … involved in terrorism."
Moreover, the Hamdan appeal is the polar opposite of routine for at least two reasons. First, its issues are central to the much-disputed claims of broad presidential power in the war on terror. Second, the court's decision on the Geneva Conventions has a spillover effect on the legality of controversial interrogation techniques used by the government at Guantanamo and elsewhere. That is because the same provision of the Geneva Conventions that would protect Hamdan from unfair trials also protects detainees from cruel, humiliating, or degrading treatment. The D.C. Circuit's decision rejecting the Geneva Conventions' trial protections—a decision that hinged on Roberts' vote—also strips away an important legal safeguard against cruel and humiliating treatment that may fall just short of torture.
Given the case's importance, then, when Gonzales interviewed Roberts for a possible Supreme Court seat on April 1, the judge should have withdrawn from the Hamdan appeal. Or he and Gonzales, as the opposing lawyer, should have revealed the interview to Hamdan's lawyer, who could then have decided whether to make a formal recusal motion. The need to do one or the other became acute—indeed incontrovertible—when arrangements were made for the May 3 interview with six high government officials. (We don't know how long before May 3 the arrangements were made.)
We do not cite these events to raise questions about Roberts' fitness for the Supreme Court. In the rush of business, his oversight may be understandable. What is immediately at stake, however, is the appearance of justice in the Hamdan case and the proper resolution of an important legal question about the limits on presidential power. Although the procedural rules are murky, it may yet be possible for Judge Roberts to withdraw his vote retroactively. That would at least eliminate the precedential effect of the opinion on whether the Geneva Conventions grant minimum human rights to Hamdan and others in his position. Better yet, the Supreme Court can remove the opinion's precedential effect by taking the Hamdan case and reversing it.
Stephen Gillers is the Emily Kempin Professor of Law at the New York University School of Law.David J. Luban is the Frederick J. Haas professor of law and philosophy at Georgetown University Law Center.Steven Lubet is a professor of law at Northwestern University School of Law.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2124603/
Talking dream jobs with the judge out of court.
By Stephen Gillers, David J. Luban, and Steven Lubet
Posted Wednesday, Aug. 17, 2005, at 11:50 AM PT
Four days before President Bush nominated John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court on July 19, an appeals court panel of three judges, including Judge Roberts, handed the Bush administration a big victory in a hotly contested challenge to the president's military commissions. The challenge was brought by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Guantanamo detainee. President Bush was a defendant in the case because he had personally, in writing, found "reason to believe" that Hamdan was a terrorist subject to military tribunals. The appeals court upheld the rules the president had authorized for these military commissions, and it rejected Hamdan's human rights claims—including claims for protection under the Geneva Conventions.
At the time, the close proximity of the court's decision and the Roberts nomination suggested no appearance of impropriety. Roberts had been assigned to hear the appeal back in December, and it was argued on April 7. Surely he had decided the case long before the administration first approached him about replacing Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who had announced her retirement on July 1. As it turns out, however, the timing was not so simple.
The nominee's Aug. 2 answers to a Senate questionnaire reveal that Roberts had several interviews with administration officials contemporaneous with the progress of the Hamdan appeal. One occurred even before the appeal was argued. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales interviewed the judge on April 1. Back then, it was an ailing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, not Justice O'Connor, who was expected to retire. The attorney general, of course, heads the Justice Department, which represents the defendants in Hamdan's case. And as White House counsel, Gonzales had advised the president on the requirements of the Geneva Conventions, which were an issue in the case.
The April interview must have gone quite well because Roberts next enjoyed what can only be labeled callback heaven. On May 3, he met with Vice President Dick Cheney; Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff; Karl Rove, Bush's chief political strategist; Harriet Miers, the White House legal counsel; Gonzales; and I. Lewis Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. On May 23, Miers interviewed Judge Roberts again.
Hamdan's lawyer was completely in the dark about these interviews until Roberts revealed them to the Senate. (Full disclosure: Professor Luban is a faculty colleague of Hamdan's principal lawyer.) Did administration officials or Roberts ask whether it was proper to conduct interviews for a possible Supreme Court nomination while the judge was adjudicating the government's much-disputed claims of expansive presidential powers? Did they ask whether it was appropriate to do so without informing opposing counsel?
If they had asked, they would have discovered that the interviews violated federal law on the disqualification of judges. Federal law deems public trust in the courts so critical that it requires judges to step aside if their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned," even if the judge is completely impartial as a matter of fact. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a 1988 Supreme Court opinion, "the very purpose of [this law] is to promote confidence in the judiciary by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety whenever possible." The requirement of an appearance of impartiality has been cited in situations like the one here, leading to the disqualification of a judge or the reversal of a verdict.
In 1985, a federal appeals court in Chicago cited the requirement of the appearance of impartiality when it ordered the recusal of a federal judge who, planning to leave the bench, had hired a "headhunter" to approach law firms in the city. By mistake—and, in fact, contrary to the judge's instructions—the headhunter contacted two opposing firms in a case then pending before the judge. One firm rejected the overture outright. The other was negative but not quite as definitive. Writing for the Court of Appeals, Judge Richard A. Posner emphasized that the trial judge "is a judge of unblemished honor and sterling character," and that he "is accused of, and has committed, no impropriety." Nevertheless, the court ordered the judge to recuse himself because of the appearance of partiality. "The dignity and independence of the judiciary are diminished when the judge comes before lawyers in the case in the role of a suppliant for employment. The public cannot be confident that a case tried under such conditions will be decided in accordance with the highest traditions of the judiciary." Although both law firms had refused to offer him employment, the court held that "an objective observer might wonder whether [the judge] might not at some unconscious level favor the firm … that had not as definitively rejected him."
In the fall and winter of 1984, a criminal-trial judge in the District of Columbia was discussing a managerial position with the Department of Justice while the local U.S. attorney's office—which is part of the department—was prosecuting an intent-to-kill case before him. Following the conviction and sentence, the judge was offered the department job and accepted. On appeal, the United States conceded that the judge had acted improperly by presiding at the trial during the employment negotiations. It argued, however, that the conviction should not be overturned. The appeals court disagreed. Relying on Judge Posner's opinion in the Chicago case, as well as the rules of judicial ethics, the court vacated the conviction even though the defendant did not "claim that his trial was unfair or that the [the judge] was actually biased against him." The court was "persuaded that an objective observer might have difficulty understanding that [the judge] did not … realize … that others might question his impartiality."
So, the problem in Hamdan is not that Roberts may have cast his vote to improve his chances of promotion. We believe he is a man of integrity who voted as he thought the law required. The problem is that if one side that very much wants to win a certain case can secretly approach the judge about a dream job while the case is still under active consideration, and especially if the judge shows interest in the job, the public's trust in the judiciary (not to mention the opposing party's) suffers because the public can never know how the approach may have affected the judge's thinking. Perhaps, as Judge Posner wrote, the judge may have been influenced even in ways that he may not consciously recognize.
A further complication here is that Roberts' vote was not a mere add-on. His vote was decisive on a key question of presidential power that now confronts the nation. Although all three judges reached the same bottom line in the case, they were divided on whether the Geneva Conventions grant basic human rights to prisoners like Hamdan who don't qualify for other Geneva protections. The lower court had held that some provisions do. Judge Roberts and a second judge rejected that view. The third judge said Geneva did apply, but found it premature to resolve the issues it raised. Hamdan has since asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.
Roberts did not have to sit out every case involving the government, no matter how routine, while he was being interviewed for the Supreme Court position. The government litigates too many cases for that to make any sense. But Hamdan was not merely suing the government. He was suing the president, who had authorized the military commissions and who had personally designated Hamdan for a commission trial, explaining that "there is reason to believe that [Hamdan] was … involved in terrorism."
Moreover, the Hamdan appeal is the polar opposite of routine for at least two reasons. First, its issues are central to the much-disputed claims of broad presidential power in the war on terror. Second, the court's decision on the Geneva Conventions has a spillover effect on the legality of controversial interrogation techniques used by the government at Guantanamo and elsewhere. That is because the same provision of the Geneva Conventions that would protect Hamdan from unfair trials also protects detainees from cruel, humiliating, or degrading treatment. The D.C. Circuit's decision rejecting the Geneva Conventions' trial protections—a decision that hinged on Roberts' vote—also strips away an important legal safeguard against cruel and humiliating treatment that may fall just short of torture.
Given the case's importance, then, when Gonzales interviewed Roberts for a possible Supreme Court seat on April 1, the judge should have withdrawn from the Hamdan appeal. Or he and Gonzales, as the opposing lawyer, should have revealed the interview to Hamdan's lawyer, who could then have decided whether to make a formal recusal motion. The need to do one or the other became acute—indeed incontrovertible—when arrangements were made for the May 3 interview with six high government officials. (We don't know how long before May 3 the arrangements were made.)
We do not cite these events to raise questions about Roberts' fitness for the Supreme Court. In the rush of business, his oversight may be understandable. What is immediately at stake, however, is the appearance of justice in the Hamdan case and the proper resolution of an important legal question about the limits on presidential power. Although the procedural rules are murky, it may yet be possible for Judge Roberts to withdraw his vote retroactively. That would at least eliminate the precedential effect of the opinion on whether the Geneva Conventions grant minimum human rights to Hamdan and others in his position. Better yet, the Supreme Court can remove the opinion's precedential effect by taking the Hamdan case and reversing it.
Stephen Gillers is the Emily Kempin Professor of Law at the New York University School of Law.David J. Luban is the Frederick J. Haas professor of law and philosophy at Georgetown University Law Center.Steven Lubet is a professor of law at Northwestern University School of Law.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2124603/
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Sandra Day O-Connor would resign to care for a spouse with 'end stage' Alzheimers. Her resignation came at the very same time a Senate Subcommittee formed to review the policies and procedures of the military. Her decision was sighted as compelling in motivating this committee who would seek legislative resolve to reign in 'runaway train' executive powers that have lead to an obscure definition of 'Enemy Combatant,' 'Military Commission' and extremist application to all these definitions including 'Torture and Torment' of 'Detainees' which has an even more obscure definition. It is a bit uncomfortable to realize Justice O'Connor may have left less of personal comfort and more under Exectutive Branch duress. She has been asked to reconsider her decision. Many doubt she will. I wish her well and thank you.
The Attack on Habeas Corpus
The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679
The Much Welcome Changes for the Senate Personnel Subcommittee
Corpus and the 4 Writs of the Consitution
Odd title it seems I am sure but there is a strong reason for it and should be prohibited in disregarding the right of any human being to their body.
Torture or no torture.
The definition of Habeaus Corpus
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm
The reason I bring up Habeas Corpus is that it is being toyed with by the Right Radicals of the Bush Administration including his attorney general and it should not. The one member of "The Personnel Subcommittee on Torture and Standards" whom is also Chairperson is Lindsey Graham. I like Senator Graham but his approach to the subject of torture and treatment of prisoners is a little too high handed and feels 'Habeas Corpus' is an issue that stands in the way of effective change to military reform taking out of the hands of the Executive Branch the immoral treatment of prisoners and therefore compromising the integrity of the USA in the International Community while inviting prosecution of our military in courts of human rights.
With Senator Graham being magnanimous to everyone including the Extremists of this administration who was represented by Former Attorney General William Barr; is risking the treatment of USA prisoners taken in war without Habeas Corpus for those we take in war. One of the focuses of this subcommitee was THAT well being of our soldiers as prisoners with Senator John McCain preciding over this aspect of the committee hearings today.
THE ONLY REAL OBJECTION I had regarding what I hear today was the willingness to play with Habeous Corpus considering the plans of this Senate Subcommittee is desiring to codify the military process matching closely the civil processes of this country. A dangerous omission in that change could be diverted to civil law if not so careful the degree of care is not imaginable especially considering we have seen the stoppage of a Senate Bill only yesterday regarding same outcome in civil law.
"The Streamlined Procedure Act of 2005"
http://www.fpdpaw.org/pdf/StreamlinedProceduresAct2005.pdf
To this I feel very stongly and do not see Senator Lindsey Graham as a person that willingly or desirously would want this type of exploitation of the American people so much as wrongly convinced this is the way to go.
We would not want even our soldiers deprived of that right and therefore any changes in military law needs to consider that strongly. Habeas Corpus is hands off. With that the good news ...
Senate Personnel Subcommittee on Torture and Standards
This committee has some wonderful members, Senator Graham is the Chair with members such as Senator Carl Levin and John McCain and others. All of these Senators were interested in the proceedings of Humdi and Padilla and I am confident the spelling of their names is wrong AND how the court decisions being made daily from the District Courts on up are bringing opinion to bear and making a real mess of the battlefield.
The first set of hearings was with members, primarily Major Generals of the JAG Corp across all branches of government. These generals were very happy to be heard and willing to speak but also admitted openly that requested documents by this distinguished committee was still classified and could not be easily released. The Generals did promise Senator Carl Levin he would be provided the memos regarding The Church Memo as early as next week. I personally as an American concerned about this country and it's image as well as it's mistreatment of prisoners certainly hope the JAG Corp will produce all the documents this committee wants to expedite their work and bring relief to the International Scrutiny of our military. So somehow getting documents regarding The Church Memo to Senator Levin by next week seems very long to me.
With that noted there was a great deal of satisfaction by this Senate Subcommittee regarding the testimonies of the JAG Corp today and I have to agree. Between this fine men of our military and their extensive knowledge of miltiary law and the desired outcome of the Senate Subcommittee I would expect some real changes to reault in humane treatment of prisoners which was on everyone's lips but also dignity returned to our military.
Purpose as Witnessed Today of this Senate Committee
One of the primary focuses of this subcommitte was the fact that Justice O'Connor somewhat chastised the Legislative Branch of this government in that they did not provide sufficient verbiage to have the Judiciary carry out what Justice O'Connor saw as 'correct' decisions regarding immoral treatment of prisoners.
That was the stimulating event to most of these committee members but as Senator Graham stated the changes in military law that would structure the Executive Branch as well as the Judicial Branch was truly based in looking out for our own as they may become prisoners at the hands of enemies and where there is unfair treatment of our prisoners under standards set primarily mimicing the Geneva Conventions we could act as an invading force to releave those prisoners of mistreatment and stop same. I thought that was an amazing thought and certainly one that rose above the high goals of this subcommittee as a real goal to setting high standards for our military in a code similar if not identical to "The Army Field Manual" already in existance.
Noted among the testimony of the members of the JAG Corp was some very real and disturbing verbiage of what has transpired in memos existing from the early days of the war in Iraq stating techniques of torture could include all lude acts, torture both physical and emotional leading even to death. Hence, Abu Ghraib. So, it would seem many of the unclassified documents remain so because it implicates higher authority in the military and not just the people whom's behavior on the Night Shift has been and is being prosectued including Lindy England.
The JAG Corp Generals did say something I thought was overlooked but perhaps not but in advise to the subcommittee they stated some of the documents requested would not be helpful because they were 'Deliberative Documents.' I would think understanding the process of Deliberation of the JAG Corp would be paramount to understanding were change would impact that deliberative process. I don't see those documents as insignificant nor should the JAG Corp Generals who put their effort and expertise into deliberation. These documents should be included in the record of this Senate Subcommittee.
The Civil Side of this that Senator McCain called for.
McCain's Contribution is 'A Breath of Fresh Air.'
The Women of Gitmo Somehow with Senator McCain's history as a POW one might expect a more severe approach to by this distinguished man who doggedly pursues priorities this administration sets aside as insignificant due to it's extremism. What I witnessed was a Senator who had been there and a Senator who would not be undone to provide the USA with the best interrogation process it has ever known.
I trust this subcommittee nearly completely without looking over my shoulder EXCEPT in the area I stated earlier with Habeas Corpus. Senator Graham is all to willing to go there and the reason is not his so much because men like Former Attorney William Barr is forcing the issue with whatever clout he may still have left over from his years under Bush #41. That would be the wrong direction of this subcommitee.
The three civilians speaking today were Mr. Barr; Mr. John Hutson, President and Dean of the Franklin Puritan Law Center an academic foundation and Stephen Saltzburg a George Washington University Law Professor. Mr. Hutson and Mr. Saltzburg had the best recommendation of the three and were openly and strongly in favor of the outcomes of this Subcommittee submitting their open and honest answers to all the presubmitted questions of the committee to written testimony which they requested be made part of the record of the work of this subcommittee. Of those two, Mr. Saltzburg was the most passionate with some very real ideas regarding changes to the military laws of this country and their achievement of high moral standards as well as effective interrogation. I am quite confident neither Mr. Saltzburg nor Mr. Hutson would approve of the tactics of the Editoral regarding The Women of Gitmo.
What about the Prisoners of Gitmo
Among the priorities of this Senate Subcommitee is to bring Gitmo dignity by making it a 'Class Act.' Raising standards, providing guidance and allowing good and EFFECTIVE interrogation accompanied by humane treatment of the prisoners by a standardized treatment facility with a codified military law.
The idea is that we have entered into a different war this time. One where by a terrorist network is one that spans many countries where other wars were fought against one sovereign nation. Gitmo and this new codification of Military Law would provide better standards to operate by and better define the definition of Enemy Combatant as well as limiting the meaning and character of Military Commission. The goal of all this including the imprisonment and interrogation of the inmates would be to proceed to procecution whereby perhaps inmates would meet with sentence via a military tribunal of death for murders such as The World Trade Towers. In doing so what is impressed to the global community of terrorists is that they will receive severe and life threatening sentences if indeed they are found guilty of a crime against humanity. This Subcommittee is also focused on the fact that terrorist networks work primarily to kill civilians which is expressly forbidden by The Geneva Conventions. The ultimate goal is to convert Gitmo into a secure facility as well as an effective interrogation facility whereby justice happens as well and not just life sentences as an enemy combatant. It seems so bizarre to have Walker Bush insist on the killers of terrorist attacks to be committed to life sentences when none of their civilian victims were.
The Primary Cry of all that gave testimony today was "Fairness to Detainees" realizing some of them might just be innocent. I believe it was Mr. Saltzburg called into the testimony also the American Bar Association position in that civilians such as himself should be included in Military Commisssions which is not done today under Bush/Cheney.
What impressed me about Mr. Hutson's testimony was his opening statement in a rather strong and directed voice, "There are serious problems of Congress Oversight." All the preciding members of the Subcommittee concurred. His thoroughness was not matched by any of the other members that testified today.
His vision was one by where The Law was the floor of a house and the morality of it as carried out under this administration was in the basement while we should be rising well above the law. Not to say we were above it to disregard it but above it in the morality of our military laws that were unmatched so the floor was solid and without reproach by any agency or authority within our borders or outside of them.
He made an excellant point in that the USA is widely deployed around the world and our numbers were substantial compared to any other nation on this planet and that to raise our standards would insure the integrity of our country which would then be a welcome entity in any country we found ourselves. He also stated with that number of deployed troops at any time in our history we need to provide a strong image of morals in humane treatment to insure our troops received the same. A brief view of Mr. Barr. continued ...
Attorney General William Barr who served under Bush #41
He was nasty and particularly nasty to Senator John McCain. He stated the Senate Subcommittee was inappropriate and an attempt to micromanage war. He felt strongly the Executive Branch needed a free hand to do exactly as they needed to regardless the opinion of any country internationally. He was the one that reiterated earlier words of Senator Graham regarding Habeas Corpus. Those were his opening remarks and he was disregarded after that deferring testimony to Mr. Saltzburg and Mr. Hutson.
Senator Johh McCain directly read from the USA Constitution to him stating Congress has the obligation to provide standards of miltiary law both on land and sea. That of course today would also include air. With that Mr. Barr accussed the Senate Subcommitte of micromanagement and the rest of his appearance was unnecessary and he was not asked to speak again.
.................
I was left with an uncomfortable impression regarding the 'timely' resignation of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as well as a result of what I heard today. We know how she is a swing vote in this court and how her opinion in regard to enemy combatants brought this alertness to the Legislature. Rightfully so. I cannot help but feel as some level of her decision making was a real slap in the face by Walker Bush and Cheney stating her precense caused the country to be at risk and she would never be granted a place a the first Woman Chief Justice.
Just a thought.
....................
I stongly feel every aspect of this society that desires the protections of high moral standards apply to our military rally round this Subcommittee and while scrutiny is necessary we need to realize they are acting as the Legislature has never acted before willing to take on the tough work while being members of the 'Committee of Fourteen' and there is absolutely no doubt that politically Walker Bush and Cheney will make them pay. It would behoove all in our country to realize we are witnessing greatness as well as bravery in the face of an administration with vicious political and adverse tendancies that result in poor outcomes for this country, ie: Gitmo currently, Abu Ghraib and Iraq in general while Osama bin Laden is still at the 'state of play.'
I believe we are on the right track and acting in the right direction finally but this Subcommittee requires a lot of support as it will meet a lot of resistance otherwise including the Propaganda Press of the Right as already today Lou Dobbs is accusing the Senate of Propaganda. Who knows where it will lead regardless the party. It needs to stop realizing we are a country with profound problems because of the action of this current administration and we all need to start rowing in the same direction.
The Much Welcome Changes for the Senate Personnel Subcommittee
Corpus and the 4 Writs of the Consitution
Odd title it seems I am sure but there is a strong reason for it and should be prohibited in disregarding the right of any human being to their body.
Torture or no torture.
The definition of Habeaus Corpus
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm
The reason I bring up Habeas Corpus is that it is being toyed with by the Right Radicals of the Bush Administration including his attorney general and it should not. The one member of "The Personnel Subcommittee on Torture and Standards" whom is also Chairperson is Lindsey Graham. I like Senator Graham but his approach to the subject of torture and treatment of prisoners is a little too high handed and feels 'Habeas Corpus' is an issue that stands in the way of effective change to military reform taking out of the hands of the Executive Branch the immoral treatment of prisoners and therefore compromising the integrity of the USA in the International Community while inviting prosecution of our military in courts of human rights.
With Senator Graham being magnanimous to everyone including the Extremists of this administration who was represented by Former Attorney General William Barr; is risking the treatment of USA prisoners taken in war without Habeas Corpus for those we take in war. One of the focuses of this subcommitee was THAT well being of our soldiers as prisoners with Senator John McCain preciding over this aspect of the committee hearings today.
THE ONLY REAL OBJECTION I had regarding what I hear today was the willingness to play with Habeous Corpus considering the plans of this Senate Subcommittee is desiring to codify the military process matching closely the civil processes of this country. A dangerous omission in that change could be diverted to civil law if not so careful the degree of care is not imaginable especially considering we have seen the stoppage of a Senate Bill only yesterday regarding same outcome in civil law.
"The Streamlined Procedure Act of 2005"
http://www.fpdpaw.org/pdf/StreamlinedProceduresAct2005.pdf
To this I feel very stongly and do not see Senator Lindsey Graham as a person that willingly or desirously would want this type of exploitation of the American people so much as wrongly convinced this is the way to go.
We would not want even our soldiers deprived of that right and therefore any changes in military law needs to consider that strongly. Habeas Corpus is hands off. With that the good news ...
Senate Personnel Subcommittee on Torture and Standards
This committee has some wonderful members, Senator Graham is the Chair with members such as Senator Carl Levin and John McCain and others. All of these Senators were interested in the proceedings of Humdi and Padilla and I am confident the spelling of their names is wrong AND how the court decisions being made daily from the District Courts on up are bringing opinion to bear and making a real mess of the battlefield.
The first set of hearings was with members, primarily Major Generals of the JAG Corp across all branches of government. These generals were very happy to be heard and willing to speak but also admitted openly that requested documents by this distinguished committee was still classified and could not be easily released. The Generals did promise Senator Carl Levin he would be provided the memos regarding The Church Memo as early as next week. I personally as an American concerned about this country and it's image as well as it's mistreatment of prisoners certainly hope the JAG Corp will produce all the documents this committee wants to expedite their work and bring relief to the International Scrutiny of our military. So somehow getting documents regarding The Church Memo to Senator Levin by next week seems very long to me.
With that noted there was a great deal of satisfaction by this Senate Subcommittee regarding the testimonies of the JAG Corp today and I have to agree. Between this fine men of our military and their extensive knowledge of miltiary law and the desired outcome of the Senate Subcommittee I would expect some real changes to reault in humane treatment of prisoners which was on everyone's lips but also dignity returned to our military.
Purpose as Witnessed Today of this Senate Committee
One of the primary focuses of this subcommitte was the fact that Justice O'Connor somewhat chastised the Legislative Branch of this government in that they did not provide sufficient verbiage to have the Judiciary carry out what Justice O'Connor saw as 'correct' decisions regarding immoral treatment of prisoners.
That was the stimulating event to most of these committee members but as Senator Graham stated the changes in military law that would structure the Executive Branch as well as the Judicial Branch was truly based in looking out for our own as they may become prisoners at the hands of enemies and where there is unfair treatment of our prisoners under standards set primarily mimicing the Geneva Conventions we could act as an invading force to releave those prisoners of mistreatment and stop same. I thought that was an amazing thought and certainly one that rose above the high goals of this subcommittee as a real goal to setting high standards for our military in a code similar if not identical to "The Army Field Manual" already in existance.
Noted among the testimony of the members of the JAG Corp was some very real and disturbing verbiage of what has transpired in memos existing from the early days of the war in Iraq stating techniques of torture could include all lude acts, torture both physical and emotional leading even to death. Hence, Abu Ghraib. So, it would seem many of the unclassified documents remain so because it implicates higher authority in the military and not just the people whom's behavior on the Night Shift has been and is being prosectued including Lindy England.
The JAG Corp Generals did say something I thought was overlooked but perhaps not but in advise to the subcommittee they stated some of the documents requested would not be helpful because they were 'Deliberative Documents.' I would think understanding the process of Deliberation of the JAG Corp would be paramount to understanding were change would impact that deliberative process. I don't see those documents as insignificant nor should the JAG Corp Generals who put their effort and expertise into deliberation. These documents should be included in the record of this Senate Subcommittee.
The Civil Side of this that Senator McCain called for.
McCain's Contribution is 'A Breath of Fresh Air.'
The Women of Gitmo Somehow with Senator McCain's history as a POW one might expect a more severe approach to by this distinguished man who doggedly pursues priorities this administration sets aside as insignificant due to it's extremism. What I witnessed was a Senator who had been there and a Senator who would not be undone to provide the USA with the best interrogation process it has ever known.
I trust this subcommittee nearly completely without looking over my shoulder EXCEPT in the area I stated earlier with Habeas Corpus. Senator Graham is all to willing to go there and the reason is not his so much because men like Former Attorney William Barr is forcing the issue with whatever clout he may still have left over from his years under Bush #41. That would be the wrong direction of this subcommitee.
The three civilians speaking today were Mr. Barr; Mr. John Hutson, President and Dean of the Franklin Puritan Law Center an academic foundation and Stephen Saltzburg a George Washington University Law Professor. Mr. Hutson and Mr. Saltzburg had the best recommendation of the three and were openly and strongly in favor of the outcomes of this Subcommittee submitting their open and honest answers to all the presubmitted questions of the committee to written testimony which they requested be made part of the record of the work of this subcommittee. Of those two, Mr. Saltzburg was the most passionate with some very real ideas regarding changes to the military laws of this country and their achievement of high moral standards as well as effective interrogation. I am quite confident neither Mr. Saltzburg nor Mr. Hutson would approve of the tactics of the Editoral regarding The Women of Gitmo.
What about the Prisoners of Gitmo
Among the priorities of this Senate Subcommitee is to bring Gitmo dignity by making it a 'Class Act.' Raising standards, providing guidance and allowing good and EFFECTIVE interrogation accompanied by humane treatment of the prisoners by a standardized treatment facility with a codified military law.
The idea is that we have entered into a different war this time. One where by a terrorist network is one that spans many countries where other wars were fought against one sovereign nation. Gitmo and this new codification of Military Law would provide better standards to operate by and better define the definition of Enemy Combatant as well as limiting the meaning and character of Military Commission. The goal of all this including the imprisonment and interrogation of the inmates would be to proceed to procecution whereby perhaps inmates would meet with sentence via a military tribunal of death for murders such as The World Trade Towers. In doing so what is impressed to the global community of terrorists is that they will receive severe and life threatening sentences if indeed they are found guilty of a crime against humanity. This Subcommittee is also focused on the fact that terrorist networks work primarily to kill civilians which is expressly forbidden by The Geneva Conventions. The ultimate goal is to convert Gitmo into a secure facility as well as an effective interrogation facility whereby justice happens as well and not just life sentences as an enemy combatant. It seems so bizarre to have Walker Bush insist on the killers of terrorist attacks to be committed to life sentences when none of their civilian victims were.
The Primary Cry of all that gave testimony today was "Fairness to Detainees" realizing some of them might just be innocent. I believe it was Mr. Saltzburg called into the testimony also the American Bar Association position in that civilians such as himself should be included in Military Commisssions which is not done today under Bush/Cheney.
What impressed me about Mr. Hutson's testimony was his opening statement in a rather strong and directed voice, "There are serious problems of Congress Oversight." All the preciding members of the Subcommittee concurred. His thoroughness was not matched by any of the other members that testified today.
His vision was one by where The Law was the floor of a house and the morality of it as carried out under this administration was in the basement while we should be rising well above the law. Not to say we were above it to disregard it but above it in the morality of our military laws that were unmatched so the floor was solid and without reproach by any agency or authority within our borders or outside of them.
He made an excellant point in that the USA is widely deployed around the world and our numbers were substantial compared to any other nation on this planet and that to raise our standards would insure the integrity of our country which would then be a welcome entity in any country we found ourselves. He also stated with that number of deployed troops at any time in our history we need to provide a strong image of morals in humane treatment to insure our troops received the same. A brief view of Mr. Barr. continued ...
Attorney General William Barr who served under Bush #41
He was nasty and particularly nasty to Senator John McCain. He stated the Senate Subcommittee was inappropriate and an attempt to micromanage war. He felt strongly the Executive Branch needed a free hand to do exactly as they needed to regardless the opinion of any country internationally. He was the one that reiterated earlier words of Senator Graham regarding Habeas Corpus. Those were his opening remarks and he was disregarded after that deferring testimony to Mr. Saltzburg and Mr. Hutson.
Senator Johh McCain directly read from the USA Constitution to him stating Congress has the obligation to provide standards of miltiary law both on land and sea. That of course today would also include air. With that Mr. Barr accussed the Senate Subcommitte of micromanagement and the rest of his appearance was unnecessary and he was not asked to speak again.
.................
I was left with an uncomfortable impression regarding the 'timely' resignation of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as well as a result of what I heard today. We know how she is a swing vote in this court and how her opinion in regard to enemy combatants brought this alertness to the Legislature. Rightfully so. I cannot help but feel as some level of her decision making was a real slap in the face by Walker Bush and Cheney stating her precense caused the country to be at risk and she would never be granted a place a the first Woman Chief Justice.
Just a thought.
....................
I stongly feel every aspect of this society that desires the protections of high moral standards apply to our military rally round this Subcommittee and while scrutiny is necessary we need to realize they are acting as the Legislature has never acted before willing to take on the tough work while being members of the 'Committee of Fourteen' and there is absolutely no doubt that politically Walker Bush and Cheney will make them pay. It would behoove all in our country to realize we are witnessing greatness as well as bravery in the face of an administration with vicious political and adverse tendancies that result in poor outcomes for this country, ie: Gitmo currently, Abu Ghraib and Iraq in general while Osama bin Laden is still at the 'state of play.'
I believe we are on the right track and acting in the right direction finally but this Subcommittee requires a lot of support as it will meet a lot of resistance otherwise including the Propaganda Press of the Right as already today Lou Dobbs is accusing the Senate of Propaganda. Who knows where it will lead regardless the party. It needs to stop realizing we are a country with profound problems because of the action of this current administration and we all need to start rowing in the same direction.
Cheney is Usurging the authority of the Legislature
NOT SURPRISING, BUT, VERY ALARMING. ANOTHER MOVE INTO 'COUP D' ETAT' by the Bush Administration. It is demanded by the USA Constitution for the Legislature to define these issues. The reason Bush and Cheney don't LIKE it is because it prevents them from being dictators.
White House Aims to Block Legislation on Detainees
By Josh White and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, July 23, 2005; Page A01
The Bush administration in recent days has been lobbying to block legislation supported by Republican senators that would bar the U.S. military from engaging in "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of detainees, from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and from using interrogation methods not authorized by a new Army field manual.
Vice President Cheney met Thursday evening with three senior Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to press the administration's case that legislation on these matters would usurp the president's authority and -- in the words of a White House official -- interfere with his ability "to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack."
Vice President Cheney told GOP senators that legislation regulating the treatment of detainees would usurp presidential authority.
It was the second time that Cheney has met with Senate members to tamp down what the White House views as an incipient Republican rebellion. The lawmakers have publicly expressed frustration about what they consider to be the administration's failure to hold any senior military officials responsible for notorious detainee abuse in Iraq and the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.\
This week's session was attended by Armed Services Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) and committee members John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.). Warner and Graham last week chaired hearings that explored detainee abuse and interrogation tactics at Guantanamo Bay and the concerns of senior military lawyers that vague administration policies have left the door open to abuse.
Neither Cheney's office nor the lawmakers would say exactly what was discussed at the meeting, citing a routine pledge of confidentiality. But Cheney has long been the administration's chief defender of presidential prerogatives, and at the meeting he reiterated opposition to congressional intervention on the topic of detainee interrogations, according to a source privy to what happened.
The White House, in a further indication of its strong feelings, bluntly warned in a statement sent to Capitol Hill on Thursday that President Bush's advisers would urge him to veto the $442 billion defense bill "if legislation is presented that would restrict the President's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice."
The threat was a veiled reference to legislation drafted by McCain and being circulated among at least 10 Republican senators, Senate aides said. No effort has been made by McCain to cultivate Democratic support, although his aides predict he could get it easily. John Ullyot, a Warner spokesman, said that the senator has been working with McCain and Graham on detainee legislation and that "the matter continues to be studied."
A spokeswoman for McCain, Andrea Jones, said yesterday that McCain plans to introduce the legislation next week. McCain, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, has criticized the way detainees have been treated by U.S. forces and is said by aides to want to cut off further abuse by requiring that the military adhere to its own interrogation rules in all cases.
One McCain amendment would set uniform standards for interrogating anyone detained by the Defense Department and would limit interrogation techniques to those listed in the Army field manual on interrogation, now being revised. Any changes to procedures would require the defense secretary to appear before Congress.
It would further require that all foreign nationals in the custody or effective control of the U.S. military must be registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross -- a provision specifically meant to block the holding of "ghost detainees" in Iraq, in Afghanistan or elsewhere. The provision would not apply to detainees in CIA custody at nonmilitary facilities.
Military investigations into the abuse in 2003 of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad disclosed that dozens were held without being registered at numerous prisons; the administration has said it needed to do so to conduct interrogations in isolation and to hide the identity of prisoners from other terrorists.
Another McCain amendment prohibits the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in the custody of the U.S. government. This provision, modeled after wording in the U.N. Convention Against Torture -- which the United States has already ratified -- is meant to overturn an administration position that the convention does not apply to foreigners outside the United States.
Graham, who has been outspoken on the need for Congress to get involved in the issue of detainee treatment, said in an interview that he intends to pursue additional amendments that would define the term "enemy combatant" for purposes of detention and regulate the military trials of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
Graham said he believes that his amendment would strengthen the president's ability to pursue the war on terror because it would give congressional support to the process of prosecuting detainees after they are transferred to Cuba, an issue that has been hotly contested in federal courts. "Every administration is reluctant to not have as much authority as possible," Graham said, adding that he has gotten mixed signals from the White House. "But we need congressional buy-in to Guantanamo."
The Republican effort is intended partly to cut off an effort by Senate Democrats to attach more stringent demands to the defense bill regarding detainees. One group, led by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), has proposed an amendment calling for an independent commission -- similar to the Sept. 11 commission -- to look into administration policies on interrogation and detainee abuse.
White House Aims to Block Legislation on Detainees
By Josh White and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, July 23, 2005; Page A01
The Bush administration in recent days has been lobbying to block legislation supported by Republican senators that would bar the U.S. military from engaging in "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of detainees, from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and from using interrogation methods not authorized by a new Army field manual.
Vice President Cheney met Thursday evening with three senior Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to press the administration's case that legislation on these matters would usurp the president's authority and -- in the words of a White House official -- interfere with his ability "to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack."
Vice President Cheney told GOP senators that legislation regulating the treatment of detainees would usurp presidential authority.
It was the second time that Cheney has met with Senate members to tamp down what the White House views as an incipient Republican rebellion. The lawmakers have publicly expressed frustration about what they consider to be the administration's failure to hold any senior military officials responsible for notorious detainee abuse in Iraq and the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.\
This week's session was attended by Armed Services Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) and committee members John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.). Warner and Graham last week chaired hearings that explored detainee abuse and interrogation tactics at Guantanamo Bay and the concerns of senior military lawyers that vague administration policies have left the door open to abuse.
Neither Cheney's office nor the lawmakers would say exactly what was discussed at the meeting, citing a routine pledge of confidentiality. But Cheney has long been the administration's chief defender of presidential prerogatives, and at the meeting he reiterated opposition to congressional intervention on the topic of detainee interrogations, according to a source privy to what happened.
The White House, in a further indication of its strong feelings, bluntly warned in a statement sent to Capitol Hill on Thursday that President Bush's advisers would urge him to veto the $442 billion defense bill "if legislation is presented that would restrict the President's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice."
The threat was a veiled reference to legislation drafted by McCain and being circulated among at least 10 Republican senators, Senate aides said. No effort has been made by McCain to cultivate Democratic support, although his aides predict he could get it easily. John Ullyot, a Warner spokesman, said that the senator has been working with McCain and Graham on detainee legislation and that "the matter continues to be studied."
A spokeswoman for McCain, Andrea Jones, said yesterday that McCain plans to introduce the legislation next week. McCain, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, has criticized the way detainees have been treated by U.S. forces and is said by aides to want to cut off further abuse by requiring that the military adhere to its own interrogation rules in all cases.
One McCain amendment would set uniform standards for interrogating anyone detained by the Defense Department and would limit interrogation techniques to those listed in the Army field manual on interrogation, now being revised. Any changes to procedures would require the defense secretary to appear before Congress.
It would further require that all foreign nationals in the custody or effective control of the U.S. military must be registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross -- a provision specifically meant to block the holding of "ghost detainees" in Iraq, in Afghanistan or elsewhere. The provision would not apply to detainees in CIA custody at nonmilitary facilities.
Military investigations into the abuse in 2003 of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad disclosed that dozens were held without being registered at numerous prisons; the administration has said it needed to do so to conduct interrogations in isolation and to hide the identity of prisoners from other terrorists.
Another McCain amendment prohibits the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in the custody of the U.S. government. This provision, modeled after wording in the U.N. Convention Against Torture -- which the United States has already ratified -- is meant to overturn an administration position that the convention does not apply to foreigners outside the United States.
Graham, who has been outspoken on the need for Congress to get involved in the issue of detainee treatment, said in an interview that he intends to pursue additional amendments that would define the term "enemy combatant" for purposes of detention and regulate the military trials of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
Graham said he believes that his amendment would strengthen the president's ability to pursue the war on terror because it would give congressional support to the process of prosecuting detainees after they are transferred to Cuba, an issue that has been hotly contested in federal courts. "Every administration is reluctant to not have as much authority as possible," Graham said, adding that he has gotten mixed signals from the White House. "But we need congressional buy-in to Guantanamo."
The Republican effort is intended partly to cut off an effort by Senate Democrats to attach more stringent demands to the defense bill regarding detainees. One group, led by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), has proposed an amendment calling for an independent commission -- similar to the Sept. 11 commission -- to look into administration policies on interrogation and detainee abuse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)